I don't understand that question. I know the language of economics very well, but you're not using the terms in way that has an obvious meaning.

>Does profit maximization occur instantaneously?

Time is not really an issue in general equilibrium theory. E.g. the assumptions can be interpreted as saying that all companies make the decision that, at that time, given all information available, maximizes the expected value of the companies future time discounted dividends.

>Does it provide any guarantees on the timeframe required to experience maximal social utility?

Social utility is timeless. E.g. it can be restated to say that if you were to make a plan (where plan can include contingencies, e.g. if X happens, do Y) to maximize the (time discounted) total social welfare over all future time periods, then this plan would involve instructing all companies to maximize profit (in the sense of my answer above).

Basically, general equilibrium theory takes into account time, by adding dynamic programming. But this augmented theory is fundamentally the same as the theory when all consumption, production and trade occurs in one instant.

Minus all the econ jargon, I think you may have been hinting at the adjustment costs for the workers involved. There are indeed adjustment costs, but you can't speak about these costs in the same terms as the actual value of having a job. It's like comparing the cost of moving from one home to another, to losing one's home entirely.

I'm not sure if economics uses the term.

Monotonic growth would mean that the dependent value (in this case utility), never decreases as a function of the independent value (time, in this case). In other words, does this framework guarantee that total utility will never decrease, even in the face of events such as 110,000 IBM employees being fired?

>Time is not really an issue in general equilibrium theory.

Then what use does it have in a universe where time appears to be fundamental?

>E.g. the assumptions can be interpreted as saying that all companies make the decision that, at that time, given all information available, maximizes the expected value of the companies future time discounted dividends.

Is there any reason to believe that these assumptions are well founded? Companies are likely aware of a tiny fraction of the total available information and they likely can only understand an even smaller fraction of that information. How does the framework respond to grossly misunderstood and sparse information?

>E.g. it can be restated to say that if you were to make a plan (where plan can include contingencies, e.g. if X happens, do Y) to maximize the (time discounted) total social welfare over all future time periods,

Is it possible to make such a plan? My guess is that any practical attempt would fail for many reasons, including being unable to define what 'social welfare' means as well as not being able to acquire enough computational power to compute across 'all future time periods'.

>There are indeed adjustment costs, but you can't speak about these costs in the same terms as the actual value of having a job. It's like comparing the cost of moving from one home to another, to losing one's home entirely.

I'm not sure exactly where you're talking about here. What is the actual value of having a job?